[Foundation-l] GFDL publisher credit

Tue Jul 11 23:51:45 UTC 2006

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/4/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On 7/4/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>It would also be nice
>>>>to once and for all answer the question as to whether or not Wikimedia
>>>>claims to be the "publisher" as the term is used in the GFDL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Under US Law, Wikimedia is the "publisher" because they create
>>"collections" of works of the
>>Wikipedia site and "publish" them to the world as XML dumps. Whether
>>electronic or in book form, they
>>are publishing. This being said, given the nebulous and undefined state
>>of internet IP law,
>>whether they are a publisher or not, there's no legal precedence to
>>determine liability, so at present
>>they are operating in an area of experimental law on the frontiers of
>>human knowledge.
>>    
>>
>It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the
>Internet, though.  The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit
>of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable
>argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all.  The
>more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane
>interpretation.
>
If it has been made public it has been published.  The real question 
here is _who_ did the publishing.

>Ultimately, it's grey area to the point where it would greatly improve
>matters if Wikimedia would make an official statement as to how it
>wants to be treated.  Does Wikimedia want to hold a copyright interest
>in works other than the logos?  Does it want to be considered a
>publisher *for the purposes of the GFDL*?  Any of the four
>combinations of answers are acceptable, but until one is chosen the
>content is that much less Free.  This is especially true when an
>employee of the foundation implies that playing it safe and assuming
>the foundation does hold a copyright interest and is a publisher is
>somehow a violation of trademark law.
>
Whatever position is taken by Wikimedia on this _must_ come from the 
Foundation Board, and be backed up by a resolution.  Simply "playing 
safe" is not a position but an avoidance of position.  It creates an 
atmosphere of uncertainty.  What seems safe to me may not seem safe to 
you, and vice versa.  Whatever the specific issue, we can then argue 
about whether we are acting safely, and accomplish absolutely nothing. 

If Wikimedia wants to hold a copyright interest inthis material it needs 
to be ready to defend those copyrights in a serious way.  Having an 
employee make ad-hoc, arbitrary and speculative pronouncements on the 
law without a clear policy from the Board to back it up probably puts 
the entire project into greater peril than the obvious silliness of the 
more ignorant copyright violators.

Ec